If by “outperformed” you mean he grew the national debt as a share of GDP, while Carter decrased the debt versus GDP, then yeah, he outperformed. But twisting an increase in the debt to be something to crow about is a Republican flaw we Democrats do not ascribe to. Sorry.
That’s why I’ve stayed out of the data debate. I don’t think that set is a good method of gauging performance and results. There is simply too much random stuff playing into the equation at any time.
Look at whatever you want but do so in context from transition to transition. It is unfair to directly compare the dot.com bubble to something from the Ike era. It was a whole new sector of the market that didn’t exist. What I gather is that under Dems the economy tends to behave sluggishly but is generally positive and stable. Under Republicans it tends to perform vigorously, but with associated risk; and both failures and success have far more impact. When it’s good it’s really good, and when it’s bad it’s really, really, bad.
The only reason any of Reagan’s economic numbers are better than Carter’s is because the world price of petroleum began to decline after 1982. Reagan was not responsible for that, just as Carter was not responsible for the increase that followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
More jobs were created per year under Carter.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
The highest unemployment rate under Carter was three points lower than the highest under Reagan.
Carter paid down the national debt. Reagan nearly tripled it.
Oh, so if a Republican does well it’s because of external factors beyond his control? But when a Dem does well it’s because of his party affiliation?
How are you not embarrassed by this behaviour? You guys are so blinded by partisan rhetoric that you can dismiss GDP growth by a Republican, hand waving it away based on deficits and externalities, but are perfectly fine assigning GDP growth to Democrats.
Clinton got plenty of credit for creating jobs, but how many were lost after the dot com bust?
You mentioned gas prices falling as helping Reagan, but gas prices soared during dubya, yet you still count that against him. Is it too much to ask for even just a little logical consistency?
Democrat Presidents nearly always orchestrate more growth in the per capita gross domestic product, and in job creation. I do not think that is a coincidence. I never blamed GW for the increase in gasoline prices that happened during his second term. I expect gasoline prices to rise under Democrat and Republican presidents.
I do give Republicans credit for the decline in the crime rate since 1980. This was achieved largely by increasing the prison population, although legalized abortion helped too by leading to the destruction of millions of potential criminals in the womb.
I don’t know quite what to think about that last remark. Perhaps the healthiest thing would be not to.
It’s an argument you hear every so often, that crime rates are down because supposedly the fetuses most likely to be aborted are those who would otherwise be born into the situations most likely to produce criminals.
This is the very definition of cherry picking. The original thesis is supported by the examination of all of the available data, not by picking and choosing pairwise contrasts that you seem to think are favorable to your position.
Besides, think about what you’re saying. According to you, Reagan achieved a 0.3% higher improvement in the GDP relative to Carter! Kinda takes a big chunk out of the pedestal upon which Republicans have placed Reagan if you point out that he only edged Carter out by a little bit in GDP (while blowing a hole in the national debt in order to do so, as others have noted).
This is also pure nonsense as well. If you’ll actually take note of the giant note in the figure, it was made when there was only one year of data available for Obama. Even just accounting for the next year, he’s already more than cut the difference in half. His track record is heading up, not down. The figure is also constructed so that it saddles him with the GDP of 2009. Fair enough, but as Sam Stone already noted, in such circumstances, there’s a lot of room to grow.
What’s likely going to be the case is that his growth isn’t going to be terribly remarkable however, because the rest of the data shows that tax cuts don’t presage significant improvement in the economy, and Obama has only cut taxes since he was in office.
I’d like to add that I find the moderate republicans to be much more realistic , but sadly eclipsed in the news and by the candidates who seem compelled to cater to the more socially conservative base. I’m referring to average citizens rather than politicians.
And now you understand Republicans! 
Seems like we should have a graphic, musical flourish and tagline like NBC’s “The More You Know” educational spots.
Talk about cherry picking.
False.
Your own cite shows this to be garbage.
Misleading as well as meaningless - average unemployment under Reagan was 5.3%, vs. 7.6% under Carter.
Also false. The national debt was $698B in 1977, and $997B in 1981.
A hint to OP - you won’t be able to understand Republicans by reading this board - too many people who will make simply make things up and post them.
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s a nice easy to read wikipedia page on national debt as a percentage of GDP by US presidential term.
Under Carter, the national debt was reduced 3.3%. Under Reagan, the national debt was increased by 11.3% in his first term and 9.3% in his second term. You’ll also note that the biggest increases were 20.0% and 15.0%, under W. Bush and H.W. Bush, respectively.
A hint to everyone, whenever a conservative tells you sometime, make sure to check the facts. Make sure that any numerical comparisons that they give you employ constant dollars.
My philosophy regarding anything that a conservative/Republican says: Don’t trust, and verify.
Also, Shodan says this to the assertion that more jobs were created under Carter than Reagan:
Of course, the cite in question shows exactly what it was purported to.
Here’s another cite:
http://economyinperspective.com/jobs
Annualized Job Growth Per President
Total NonFarm Private Sector Only
Kennedy/Johnson 3.3% 3.0%
Carter 3.1% 3.3%
Clinton 2.4% 2.6%
Truman 2.3% 2.5%
Reagan 2.1% 2.3%
Nixon/Ford 1.9% 1.7%
Eisenhower 0.9% 0.5%
GHW Bush 0.6% 0.4%
GW Bush 0.2% -0.1%
Shodan: How on earth can you claim that the “jobs created per year” numbers are not as **NDD **claimed? It’s there in black and white. Sure, the total number of jobs created was greater during Reagan’s 2 terms than Carter’s 1 term, but that’s 8 years vs 4 years. It only makes sense to look at jobs/yr given the different number of terms in office.
From NDD’s cite:
Carter: 2.6M/yr
Reagan: 2.0M/yr
I would hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake on this point.
That’s nice, but NDD’s statement remains false. He claims that Carter paid down the debt, which is false. The debt went up by some $300B.
And mine is that liberals on the SDMB will go to any lengths, including being as deliberately misleading as they can, to deny the reality of the Reagan era. To wit:
The assertion that more jobs were created under Carter than under Reagan is false, and the cite shows it to be so. 16.1 million is a larger number than 10.5 million.
The “jobs created per year” numbers are garbage, meaningless, and misleading.
Look at the cite he gave - the payroll increase under Reagan was 17.6%. Under Carter, it was 13.1%. The population grew by 9.8 million under Carter; by 17.3 million under Reagan. Reagan inherited a huge recession and it took a couple of years to recover.
This whole thread is packed with cherry-picking of the most blatantly dishonest sort, and none of it is coming from the right. As mentioned, liberals will go to almost any lengths to deny that the Reagan years were what they were.
And the instant that Obama looks worse on any one of these cherry-picked, intentionally misleading pieces of garbage statistics, they will change their tune instantly.
If Reagan doesn’t get any credit for fixing a recession he inherited, then Obama doesn’t either. If Reagan was a terrible President for increasing the national debt, then Obama is worse for increasing it a fuck of a lot more.
I am different from you, John Mace - I have no hope whatever that the Usual Suspects will admit their mistake, Because it wasn’t something they did by mistake.
Regards,
Shodan
I guess that dashes that hope, John.
What makes a good man go moderate? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of moderateness?"
Moderators, of course! It’s what they do, they moderate! Our Republic will not be safe until the scourge of cognitive dissonance is expunged, and moderators are radicalized! This position may strike you as extremist, but I say, “What do we want? Mild discomfort to the moderators! When do we want it? Well, pretty soon, if that’s OK with you…”